The eventual replacement of today's so-called “1×” liquid laundry detergents and liquid fabric softeners with modern, more concentrated “2×” formulations is of considerable commercial importance. Doubling the concentration of active ingredients in such compositions allows usage levels to be halved. Thus, for the same number of product usages, only half the volume of product need be supplied to the consumer. This results in considerable savings in packaging materials and shipping costs, as well as simplifying transportation and storage of the product by the consumer. Importantly, the overall carbon footprint of the product is reduced. Of course, the change-over from (1×) formulations to (2×) formulations is not without its problems. Changing the habits and practices of consumers can be remarkably challenging, especially since most consumers are quite satisfied with their current (1×) products. Accordingly, consumers must be educated regarding the benefits of the (2×) formulations and are quick to notice and assert their displeasure concerning any perceived problems associated with the change-over. On the other hand, consumers do expect some differences in product attributes that signal they are using the new (2×) version,
One expected visual and tactile signal for any concentrated liquid formulation is that it be more viscous that its less concentrated version. This expectation is easily met with liquid laundry detergents, due at least in part to the phase properties of the detersive surfactants used therein. For example, conventional (1×) liquid laundry detergents typically have viscosities in the range of 250 to 300 cps, whereas the counterpart (2×) formulations may have viscosities in the range of about 350 to about 700 cps, typically about 350 to about 500 cps.
One quite successful innovation in the marketing of (1×) formulations has been the introduction of large, economy-size containers from which liquid product is dispensed by means of a tap, rather than by pouring. Of course, the introduction of the (2×) formulation does allow the size of the container to be reduced, but tap dispensing is still desirable on the larger product sizes.
Unfortunately, however, it has now been unexpectedly discovered that the higher viscosities of (2×) formulations can result in unacceptably slow product flow through the tap dispensers that are commercially available for (1×) formulations. Moreover, to change the overall design and size of the currently-available taps would require quite expensive re-tooling. This presents a problem to the manufacturer: to meet consumer expectations for a (2×) product that is more viscous, but has an acceptable flow rate through a dispenser tap that can be produced economically. The present invention addresses this flow problem in a cost-effective manner, as will be seen from the following disclosure.